gamedevlists-general Mailing List for gamedev (Page 54)
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
You can subscribe to this list here.
2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(28) |
Nov
(13) |
Dec
(168) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002 |
Jan
(51) |
Feb
(16) |
Mar
(29) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(25) |
Jul
(43) |
Aug
(18) |
Sep
(41) |
Oct
(16) |
Nov
(37) |
Dec
(208) |
2003 |
Jan
(82) |
Feb
(89) |
Mar
(54) |
Apr
(75) |
May
(78) |
Jun
(141) |
Jul
(47) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(16) |
Nov
(50) |
Dec
(213) |
2004 |
Jan
(76) |
Feb
(76) |
Mar
(23) |
Apr
(30) |
May
(14) |
Jun
(37) |
Jul
(64) |
Aug
(29) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(26) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(10) |
2005 |
Jan
(9) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(11) |
Jun
|
Jul
(39) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
2006 |
Jan
(24) |
Feb
(18) |
Mar
(9) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(29) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
|
2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(9) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
|
2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
(34) |
Jun
|
Jul
(9) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(4) |
2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
From: Jamie F. <ja...@qu...> - 2003-03-25 10:21:15
|
We're heading toward a DLL for entities at some point, mostly so we can talk to our editor nicely, but i'm not envisaging doing a DLL per entity :) But it hasn't happened yet. Jamie -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Brian Hook Sent: 25 March 2003 05:16 To: gam...@li...; gam...@li... Subject: [GD-General] DLLs for game objects Relating to a thread on the gamedevlists-windows list, I thought I'd just toss this out for discussion. One of the reasons often touted for using a scripting language is that you can easily modify the behaviour of game objects without recompiling your main source base. This is definitely an advantage. The way you'd achieve the same effect using compiled code is via DLLs. At a coarser level, the Quakes did this with QuakeC (Q1), server-side DLLs (Quake 2), and server + client side DLLs (Q3), but each entity itself was not a separate DLL. So let's take that to an extreme, where every object is generated by a factory method within a specific DLL. You get the advantage that your "game kernel" does not have to be recompiled on the fly to change behaviour, along with the advantages of debugger compatibility and compiled code. The downside is primarily complexity, in that you have hundreds or maybe even thousands of DLLs for every entity, e.g. sword.dll and orc.dll or what have you. Not to mention that you could conceivably run into a problem with DLL dependencies (what if vorpal_sword.dll is dependent on sword.dll?). None of these problems are benefits are particularly mind blowing, but I haven't seen it done in practice so I was curious what others might think of it. I personally still prefer monolithic, statically linked stuff because the practical advantages typically outweigh the theoretical benefits. Thoughts and comments? -Hook ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-general mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU7 |
From: Ray <ra...@gu...> - 2003-03-25 06:51:08
|
I have thought about this for our game, and we already have factory functions for our classes so it would be trivial to move them into dlls. I've already done that for testing once, but as you said, the practicality outweighs the theoretically. But, I wouldn't have a different dll for each object type, instead a different dll for a set of objects or classstypes. Keeping the ability to move objects into their own dlls is good for general software engineering anyways and there's no reason not to design it that way, I think. Recompiling the game kernel if there's an object change shows poor relationship between the engine and the objects. Our game recompiles on my machine in under 5 minutes so there's no need to split the objects out anyways, and when an object behavior changes, there's only like 1-2 files that need recompiling too. All-in-all, it's good to have your engine and objects separate from a design standpoint, but there's not much of a reason to make them a separate dll unless you really want modularity for future mods. I'm tired, so I hope that's coherent enough for you. - Ray Brian Hook wrote: > Relating to a thread on the gamedevlists-windows list, I thought I'd > just toss this out for discussion. > > One of the reasons often touted for using a scripting language is > that you can easily modify the behaviour of game objects without > recompiling your main source base. This is definitely an advantage. > > The way you'd achieve the same effect using compiled code is via > DLLs. At a coarser level, the Quakes did this with QuakeC (Q1), > server-side DLLs (Quake 2), and server + client side DLLs (Q3), but > each entity itself was not a separate DLL. > > So let's take that to an extreme, where every object is generated by > a factory method within a specific DLL. You get the advantage that > your "game kernel" does not have to be recompiled on the fly to > change behaviour, along with the advantages of debugger compatibility > and compiled code. > > The downside is primarily complexity, in that you have hundreds or > maybe even thousands of DLLs for every entity, e.g. sword.dll and > orc.dll or what have you. Not to mention that you could conceivably > run into a problem with DLL dependencies (what if vorpal_sword.dll is > dependent on sword.dll?). > > None of these problems are benefits are particularly mind blowing, > but I haven't seen it done in practice so I was curious what others > might think of it. > > I personally still prefer monolithic, statically linked stuff because > the practical advantages typically outweigh the theoretical benefits. > > Thoughts and comments? > > -Hook |
From: Brian H. <bri...@py...> - 2003-03-25 05:15:45
|
Relating to a thread on the gamedevlists-windows list, I thought= I'd just toss this out for discussion. One of the reasons often touted for using a scripting language is= that you can easily modify the behaviour of game objects without= recompiling your main source base. This is definitely an= advantage. The way you'd achieve the same effect using compiled code is via= DLLs. At a coarser level, the Quakes did this with QuakeC (Q1),= server-side DLLs (Quake 2), and server + client side DLLs (Q3),= but each entity itself was not a separate DLL. So let's take that to an extreme, where every object is generated= by a factory method within a specific DLL. You get the advantage= that your "game kernel" does not have to be recompiled on the fly to change behaviour, along with the advantages of debugger= compatibility and compiled code. The downside is primarily complexity, in that you have hundreds= or maybe even thousands of DLLs for every entity, e.g. sword.dll and= orc.dll or what have you. Not to mention that you could= conceivably run into a problem with DLL dependencies (what if= vorpal_sword.dll is dependent on sword.dll?). None of these problems are benefits are particularly mind= blowing, but I haven't seen it done in practice so I was curious what= others might think of it. I personally still prefer monolithic, statically linked stuff= because the practical advantages typically outweigh the theoretical= benefits. Thoughts and comments? -Hook |
From: Brian H. <bri...@py...> - 2003-03-25 05:15:45
|
Relating to a thread on the gamedevlists-windows list, I thought= I'd just toss this out for discussion. One of the reasons often touted for using a scripting language is= that you can easily modify the behaviour of game objects without= recompiling your main source base. This is definitely an= advantage. The way you'd achieve the same effect using compiled code is via= DLLs. At a coarser level, the Quakes did this with QuakeC (Q1),= server-side DLLs (Quake 2), and server + client side DLLs (Q3),= but each entity itself was not a separate DLL. So let's take that to an extreme, where every object is generated= by a factory method within a specific DLL. You get the advantage= that your "game kernel" does not have to be recompiled on the fly to change behaviour, along with the advantages of debugger= compatibility and compiled code. The downside is primarily complexity, in that you have hundreds= or maybe even thousands of DLLs for every entity, e.g. sword.dll and= orc.dll or what have you. Not to mention that you could= conceivably run into a problem with DLL dependencies (what if= vorpal_sword.dll is dependent on sword.dll?). None of these problems are benefits are particularly mind= blowing, but I haven't seen it done in practice so I was curious what= others might think of it. I personally still prefer monolithic, statically linked stuff= because the practical advantages typically outweigh the theoretical= benefits. Thoughts and comments? -Hook |
From: Jamie F. <ja...@qu...> - 2003-03-04 11:40:25
|
even if there had been a patent on chess (hard, given that it predates patent law :), it would have expired a long time ago :) j -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Gareth Lewin Sent: 04 March 2003 10:10 To: gam...@li... Subject: RE: [GD-General] Copyright on games > My understanding is that it's patents you have to worry > about. Patents > being for the "idea" and copyright being for the "implementaion". > > So you could copy the basics of the game idea, but you would > have to make it > look different. (Unless they have a patent) > > The easiest way to find out what matters is to contact the > creators of the > original game, and a lawyer :) Hmm, that makes a lot more sense to me thank you. So theoretically, unless the gameplay itself is patented (not likely ofcourse), a game that looks totally differant but is the same gameplay would be legal. I wonder how this passes over to more standard games like Chess, Bridge etc ? I doubt anyone has a patent on that :) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-general mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 |
From: Gareth L. <GL...@cl...> - 2003-03-04 10:10:13
|
> My understanding is that it's patents you have to worry > about. Patents > being for the "idea" and copyright being for the "implementaion". > > So you could copy the basics of the game idea, but you would > have to make it > look different. (Unless they have a patent) > > The easiest way to find out what matters is to contact the > creators of the > original game, and a lawyer :) Hmm, that makes a lot more sense to me thank you. So theoretically, unless the gameplay itself is patented (not likely ofcourse), a game that looks totally differant but is the same gameplay would be legal. I wonder how this passes over to more standard games like Chess, Bridge etc ? I doubt anyone has a patent on that :) |
From: Simon S. <red...@ho...> - 2003-03-04 01:17:23
|
>From: Gareth Lewin <GL...@cl...> >To: gam...@li... >Subject: RE: [GD-General] Copyright on games >Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:44:23 -0000 >Reply-To: gam...@li... > >I will come out and say that Bust-A-Move clone was a random example based >on >a game that you can play here with Sky (British sat TV company). > >I'm asking in general. > >IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer ? > >My wife is, maybe I should ask her ? :) Although I doubt she would know, >it's not her field (thus my question here). > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Maier [mailto:st...@ys...] > > Sent: 03 March 2003 14:37 > > To: gam...@li... > > Subject: Re: [GD-General] Copyright on games > > > > > > Well The Tetris Company has taken action against others that > > have made Teris clones before. Their website if I remember > > correctly even had a link to talk to them about officially > > licensed games, but they guy answering the emails was not > > very helpful. > > > > I had heard of a publisher (Extreme3D) getting sued for > > having clones, but then there is egames, which does alot of clones. > > > > IANAL, so I can't talk about the legality of a bust-a-move > > clone, but there are alot of them out there - and some big > > names making that type of clone for different consoles too. > > So I think that you might fall under a copyright owners > > radar, and that they would probably not sue, but there is > > always a chance. Take a look at Snood. They have been a > > very popular shareware version of bust-a-move and I don't > > think that have been sued yet. > > > > Steve > > > My understanding is that it's patents you have to worry about. Patents being for the "idea" and copyright being for the "implementaion". So you could copy the basics of the game idea, but you would have to make it look different. (Unless they have a patent) The easiest way to find out what matters is to contact the creators of the original game, and a lawyer :) --redwyre _________________________________________________________________ MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp |
From: Gareth L. <GL...@cl...> - 2003-03-03 14:44:39
|
I will come out and say that Bust-A-Move clone was a random example based on a game that you can play here with Sky (British sat TV company). I'm asking in general. IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer ? My wife is, maybe I should ask her ? :) Although I doubt she would know, it's not her field (thus my question here). > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Maier [mailto:st...@ys...] > Sent: 03 March 2003 14:37 > To: gam...@li... > Subject: Re: [GD-General] Copyright on games > > > Well The Tetris Company has taken action against others that > have made Teris clones before. Their website if I remember > correctly even had a link to talk to them about officially > licensed games, but they guy answering the emails was not > very helpful. > > I had heard of a publisher (Extreme3D) getting sued for > having clones, but then there is egames, which does alot of clones. > > IANAL, so I can't talk about the legality of a bust-a-move > clone, but there are alot of them out there - and some big > names making that type of clone for different consoles too. > So I think that you might fall under a copyright owners > radar, and that they would probably not sue, but there is > always a chance. Take a look at Snood. They have been a > very popular shareware version of bust-a-move and I don't > think that have been sued yet. > > Steve > |
From: Steve M. <st...@ys...> - 2003-03-03 14:36:19
|
Well The Tetris Company has taken action against others that have made Teris clones before. Their website if I remember correctly even had a link to talk to them about officially licensed games, but they guy answering the emails was not very helpful. I had heard of a publisher (Extreme3D) getting sued for having clones, but then there is egames, which does alot of clones. IANAL, so I can't talk about the legality of a bust-a-move clone, but there are alot of them out there - and some big names making that type of clone for different consoles too. So I think that you might fall under a copyright owners radar, and that they would probably not sue, but there is always a chance. Take a look at Snood. They have been a very popular shareware version of bust-a-move and I don't think that have been sued yet. Steve ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Gareth Lewin <GL...@cl...> Reply-To: gam...@li... Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:49:09 -0000 >Does anyone have any pointers to some info on what is (c) and what isn't ? > >Could I take bust-a-move (puzzle bobble). Totally redo the game, different >graphics, different sounds, etc, but same game play ? > >Maybe rotating the game play so you shoot down. Would that be legal ? > >_____________________ >Regards, Gareth Lewin > >"Well yes, apart from a unified API to a wide range of PC hardware, a >powerful operating system accessible to Joe Public, one of the most >developer-friendly pieces of console hardware ever made and a rather >promising new scripting language, what have Microsoft ever given us?" >"A computer in every home?" >"Oh shut up." >(Thanks to Tom Forsyth for that) > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >Welcome to geek heaven. >http://thinkgeek.com/sf >_______________________________________________ >Gamedevlists-general mailing list >Gam...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general >Archives: >http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 > |
From: Jamie F. <ja...@qu...> - 2003-03-03 14:32:17
|
ianal (but my father was... and wrote a book as an introduction to international intellectual property law, sadly now out of print :). i believe the implementation is copyright, not the idea behind it. then again, i believe some US games companies have done their best to stop people cloning their games, and fighting a law suit is never much fun, even if they haven't got a leg to stand on legally. jamie -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Gareth Lewin Sent: 03 March 2003 12:49 To: Gamedevlists-General (E-mail) Subject: [GD-General] Copyright on games Does anyone have any pointers to some info on what is (c) and what isn't ? Could I take bust-a-move (puzzle bobble). Totally redo the game, different graphics, different sounds, etc, but same game play ? Maybe rotating the game play so you shoot down. Would that be legal ? _____________________ Regards, Gareth Lewin "Well yes, apart from a unified API to a wide range of PC hardware, a powerful operating system accessible to Joe Public, one of the most developer-friendly pieces of console hardware ever made and a rather promising new scripting language, what have Microsoft ever given us?" "A computer in every home?" "Oh shut up." (Thanks to Tom Forsyth for that) ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-general mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 |
From: Gareth L. <GL...@cl...> - 2003-03-03 12:49:26
|
Does anyone have any pointers to some info on what is (c) and what isn't ? Could I take bust-a-move (puzzle bobble). Totally redo the game, different graphics, different sounds, etc, but same game play ? Maybe rotating the game play so you shoot down. Would that be legal ? _____________________ Regards, Gareth Lewin "Well yes, apart from a unified API to a wide range of PC hardware, a powerful operating system accessible to Joe Public, one of the most developer-friendly pieces of console hardware ever made and a rather promising new scripting language, what have Microsoft ever given us?" "A computer in every home?" "Oh shut up." (Thanks to Tom Forsyth for that) |
From: Mike W. <ge...@ub...> - 2003-02-26 21:49:12
|
dunno about amazing, but almost all of the pieces of the puzzle are in place already, and i'm putting the finishing touches on the content management system for the site - won't be too long before i have something online to show. i'll definitely keep everyone posted about any news (opening day, etc) on the publishing front. mike w www.uber-geek.ca Gareth Lewin wrote: >Wow, this looks amazing. I know there are financial interests for doing >this, but they can't be huge, which brings me to the conclusion that you >really want to help the Indies out there. > >Thanks a lot sir. (I'm not an indie, but that's not the point). > >Assuming games are good, I will be supporting this when it goes live by >purchasing whatever looks really good :) So keep us posted, > >_____________________ >Regards, Gareth Lewin > > |
From: Gareth L. <GL...@cl...> - 2003-02-26 10:11:48
|
Wow, this looks amazing. I know there are financial interests for doing this, but they can't be huge, which brings me to the conclusion that you really want to help the Indies out there. Thanks a lot sir. (I'm not an indie, but that's not the point). Assuming games are good, I will be supporting this when it goes live by purchasing whatever looks really good :) So keep us posted, _____________________ Regards, Gareth Lewin "Well yes, apart from a unified API to a wide range of PC hardware, a powerful operating system accessible to Joe Public, one of the most developer-friendly pieces of console hardware ever made and a rather promising new scripting language, what have Microsoft ever given us?" "A computer in every home?" "Oh shut up." (Thanks to Tom Forsyth for that) |
From: Mike W. <ge...@ub...> - 2003-02-25 23:32:53
|
> > >>[shameless plug time] >>my company is currently preparing a publishing site for the game >>engine we support as well, but the goal is definitely to have games >>with other engines included as well. >> >> >Actually, can you go ahead and describe some more on-list what this >is about? Hard to say it's "off-topic", although maybe this should >migrate to gamedevlists-general as a more appropriate forum. > K here goes ;} Essentially, I have been helping sponsor and develop an open source game engine (Reality Factory) for several years now, the engine has grown and matured significantly over the past 3 years, to the point that people are coming up with completed games that are ready to sell. I've been frustrated (as many others have i'm sure) with the options that are available currently, and as a result I've started work on this project. Currently, there are ways to get your game for sale online, but these companies don't do any marketing or promotions, don't really 'help' you beyond actually providing the shipped-cd for the customer. This is where this project falls. We let you build the games, we'll promote it as well as give you the tools to manage & support the game once it's been released. Basically, we're developing a customized online portal that is designed to help you sell your games. Some of the services we will be offering: * Cd's can be shipped in any number of different packaging styles, with printed manuals, in normal CD cases, DVD cases, etc...just depends on how you want your game to look when it gets shipped. This will also mean that each developer can, to a certain extent, customize the revenue they receive for their game - if you want that 50 page printed manual, so be it, but this will reduce revenue for the game as well (printing costs, etc) compared to a game shipped with the CD and a smaller insert manual. * Customized & secure product registration system that allows for shareware software to become upgraded & unlocked into full-release software. Alot of developers seem to be creating so-called 'Episodic releases' - I'm experimenting with this as a possibility as well. This is the centerstone of the entire system - secure delivery of the games. * Online e-Commerce sales & distribution integrated with the software security system - demo's can be setup in several ways - for 'x' days, for 'x' plays, that type of thing. * Shareware download & CD bundles for players to find the newest games to play as part of a larger online media portal (which will be promoting indie music and videos as well as games). * For online-capable games, we can provide network server access, bandwidth and servers for any games we are publishing. We've already been doing this for years with counter-strike & half-life based servers, providing rentals & community support. * Beta testing / community management tools for mailing lists, bug tracking, forums and more...a 'sourceforge for indie game developers' - we don't have a huge team here, but the goal is that we can 'help you help yourselves' in this manner, to create the most professional product possible. * Preview movies for your game, in online streaming format - as a simple example, I posted a VERY simple preview for the game i'm developing a few months ago - it has had literally thousands of people view it every month since it went online. We can help create a small mini-preview movie of your game to help you promote your game * Provide merchandise for each game, including posters, calenders, mousepads, t-shirts, etc.. * Soundtrack CD's for your game - we'll help you get your tracks into soundtrack ready format, if you don't have them already. We have access to alot of indie music and will help work to get you the coolest soundtrack possible for your game. It's gonna be a pretty interesting system overall...there will be a control panel where the developers will be able to update news, screenshots & game info from the web, as well as check out sales, traffic, manage your communities and so on. We already have our network & bandwidth partners solid through the game server rental side of things (which has been rollin along for several years now), and in general, I'm very optimistic about the potential this project has. We will be offering reasonable royalty rates, similar to what garagegames and x-games are offering, but i think the key is that we are looking to support ANY indie game that is professional enough to be considered a finished product. I'd love to hear from any indies that have games that they have finished already or will be completing in the near future. I'd like to have several titles available when we open the doors to the public. An ongoing discussion regarding this topic is available from my site: http://www.uber-geek.ca/?page=publishing Cheers Mike Wuetherick www.uber-geek.ca mi...@ub... |
From: Gareth L. <GL...@cl...> - 2003-02-25 10:21:20
|
Yes, but when Dylan split up with Brenda (Shannon D'horty) I kind of decided he was a twat. Oops, this isn't the 90210 mailing list ? > -----Original Message----- > From: phi...@pl... > [mailto:phi...@pl...] > Sent: 24 February 2003 21:49 > To: gam...@li... > Subject: RE: [GD-General] C# versus C++ for game engines > > > > George Warner <ge...@ap...>: > > Sorry, I missed that. In that case I recommend that he use Cocoa & > Objective-C! ;-) > > Not Dylan? > > Cheers, > Phil > > PS I actually quite liked Dylan... > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-general mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 > |
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-02-24 21:53:32
|
George Warner <ge...@ap...>: > Sorry, I missed that. In that case I recommend that he use Cocoa & Objective-C! ;-) Not Dylan? Cheers, Phil PS I actually quite liked Dylan... |
From: George W. <ge...@ap...> - 2003-02-24 21:16:08
|
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:39:31 -0000, Gareth Lewin <GL...@cl...> wrote: >> Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? What gained >> portability?!? Go back >> and re-read: "Unlikely C# will become portable in any >> foreseeable future," & >> "FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.". > > How did Jesus say it (Sorry, I'm jewish), "He who has not sinned shall cast > the first stone" ? > > He was using Sarcasm, you can tell by the sentance > > "Thanks for all of the feedback. Maybe when I come down off > of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your > insights." Sorry, I missed that. In that case I recommend that he use Cocoa & Objective-C! ;-) [\SARCASM] -- Enjoy, George Warner, Mixed Mode Magic Fragment Scientist Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS) |
From: Gareth L. <GL...@cl...> - 2003-02-24 17:39:40
|
> Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? What gained > portability?!? Go back > and re-read: "Unlikely C# will become portable in any > foreseeable future," & > "FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.". How did Jesus say it (Sorry, I'm jewish), "He who has not sinned shall cast the first stone" ? He was using Sarcasm, you can tell by the sentance "Thanks for all of the feedback. Maybe when I come down off of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your insights." |
From: George W. <ge...@ap...> - 2003-02-24 17:24:11
|
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:48:34 -0800, "Colin Fahey" <cp...@ea...> wrote: > ============================================================================ >>>> Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future, >>>> Which in my opinion will successfully rule it out from majority >>>> of game engines. > ============================================================================ >>>> C# for game engines, in a nutshell: >>>> Pros: Reflection. >>>> Cons: FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms. > ============================================================================ > > The consensus seems to be that switching to C# is the way to go for > all current and future video game projects, because of its gained > portability, medium-term productivity, compelling "big deal", and > foreseeable viability. Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? What gained portability?!? Go back and re-read: "Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future," & "FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms.". -- Enjoy, George Warner, Mixed Mode Magic Fragment Scientist Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS) |
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-02-23 20:23:51
|
Colin: > Thanks for all of the feedback. Maybe when I come down off of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your insights. LOL! Do bear in mind that C++ was first devised in 1979, nearly two decades before the games industry started using it seriously. Cheers, Phil PS Now if you'd said you were starting a new game engine in Lisp... |
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2003-02-23 17:51:00
|
2003 February 23rd Sunday Okay, I see a trend... ============================================================================ >>> [...] I have read some >>> about C# and I really don't see what the big deal is for most game >>> programming. The way I see it, changing languages is something that will >>> be painful and cause a medium-term productivity loss, so there must be >>> some *extremely* compelling reasons to change. ============================================================================ ============================================================================ >>> The problems you point out, however, make its adoption unadvisable for most >>> game projects. There is not a lot of productivity to gain compared to the >>> costs involved. [...] ============================================================================ ============================================================================ >>> Unlikely C# will become portable in any foreseeable future, >>> Which in my opinion will successfully rule it out from majority >>> of game engines. ============================================================================ ============================================================================ >>> the mono project seems doomed to failure as a result. ============================================================================ ============================================================================ >>> C# for game engines, in a nutshell: >>> Pros: Reflection. >>> Cons: FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms. ============================================================================ The consensus seems to be that switching to C# is the way to go for all current and future video game projects, because of its gained portability, medium-term productivity, compelling "big deal", and foreseeable viability. I didn't expect this kind of universal support for such a new development platform, especially given the kind of professional experience of the people who post to this mailing list, but I am humble and I hear what you guys are saying. Now it's full-steam ahead with my C# game engine! I'm so glad that I'm not alone on this one. I am really psyched that major players in the industry have embraced C# as their new game engine technology. For a while I thought I was going to have to bash Microsoft for inventing C# as a way to sell more software, books, and seminars, and as a way to divide mind-share and sue people. How cynical could I get?! Thanks for all of the feedback. Maybe when I come down off of all of this crack cocaine I will get more out of your insights. --- Colin cp...@ea... |
From: <phi...@pl...> - 2003-02-21 20:09:52
|
C# for game engines, in a nutshell: Pros: Reflection. Cons: FUD regarding long term viablility on non-microsoft platforms. Cheers, Phil |
From: Mike W. <mi...@ub...> - 2003-02-21 10:48:06
|
couple of differing viewpoints i've found http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebusiness/story/0,2000024981,20270819,00.htm http://slashdot.org/articles/02/04/05/1456252.shtml?tid=109 mike w www.uber-geek.ca Mark Webster wrote: >Miguel de Icaza & co are doing this in full knowledge of Microsoft. In >fact, I seem to remember talk of it being almost a partnership of sorts, >but I can't seem to dredge up the link I read to validate this. > |
From: Mark W. <ma...@aw...> - 2003-02-21 10:02:13
|
> >If you have the Mono version of the .NET API under Linux, then > >you can enjoy the same stack unwinding. > > > > > except that microsoft has declared that they will be suing and attacking > any attempts at reverse engineering their .net technology... > > the mono project seems doomed to failure as a result. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002-February/msg00031.html See heading "What is Mono?" Miguel de Icaza & co are doing this in full knowledge of Microsoft. In fact, I seem to remember talk of it being almost a partnership of sorts, but I can't seem to dredge up the link I read to validate this. Can't really think of how to steer this back towards having much to do with game development! [OT ends here. sorry!] Mark Webster |
From: Wayne C. <wc...@re...> - 2003-02-21 09:43:11
|
> except that microsoft has declared that they will be suing and attacking > any attempts at reverse engineering their .net technology... > > the mono project seems doomed to failure as a result. Maybe I'm missing something here, but Microsoft released the source-code for the C# compiler and the CLI amongst other things in order to get it ported to other platforms. Using that would be different to 'reverse engineering' their commercial compiler (which, AFAIK, has a 'more advanced' codebase). http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?url=/downloads/sample.asp?ur l=/MSDN-FILES/027/002/097/msdncompositedoc.xml Wayney -Virus scanned and cleared ok |